ORDER 1. These appeals are directed against Final Order No. A/141-144/WZB/2005/CI dated 17-2-2005 in Appeal No. E/55-58/00-MUM passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") wherein and whereby the Tribunal while accepting the appeals filed by the respondent assessees, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise confirming the duty demand of Rs. 93,98,607 against the assessee and imposing a penalty of Rs.40 lakhs in terms of Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "the Rules") for the period from 1-4-1993 to 2-7-1996 and Rs.54,01,636 under Section 11-AC of the Act for the period from 28-9-1996 to 31-3-1998 and penalties of Rs.2 lakhs, Rs.1 lakh and Rs.50,000 on the Managing Director, Chief Executive and Authorised Signatory respectively of the assessee. The Commissioner confirmed the demand by classifying the product "Bitufelt Type III Grade I" under Chapter Heading 68.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 (for short "the Tariff Act"), and rejecting the claim of the assessee for classification under Chapter Heading 59.09 read with Notifications Nos. 53/65-CE and 92/94-CE dated 20-3-1965 and 25-4-1994 respectively. 2. The two points to be decided in the present appeals are: (i) whether the article under consideration is to be classified under Chapter Heading 68.07, as contended by the Revenue or under Chapter Heading 59.09, as contended by the assessee; and (ii) whether the process of making blown grade bitumen out of straight grade bitumen amounts to manufacture. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. The respondent assessee is not represented before us in spite of service. 4. The Tribunal relying upon an earlier decision of another Bench of the Tribunal in CCE v. Bitumen Products (India?, held that "bituminised Hessian based felt" is covered under Chapter Heading 59.09 as contended by the assessee and not under 68.07 as contended by the Revenue. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Bitumen Products (India) and the same has become final. 5. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Bitumen Products (India) and the same has become final. 5. This Court in a catena of cases has consistently taken the view that if an earlier order is not appealed against by the Revenue and the same has attained finality, then it is not open to the Revenue to accept the judgment/order on the same question in the case of one assessee and question its correctness in the case of some other assessees. The Revenue cannot pick and choose. (See Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dala 2, CCE v.TELCo, Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. CCE5, etc.) 6. It was held in Birla Corpn. Ltd., as under: (SCC p. 97, para 5) "5. In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand 'in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees in a quandary." 7. Accordingly, we affirm the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the article under consideration would be classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.09 and the assessee would be entitled to the exemption from payment of excise duty under the notifications in question. 8. The second point, as to whether the process of making blown grade bitumen out of straight grade bitumen amounts to manufacture, was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, relying upon the decisions of the Tribunal in CCE v. Tikitar Industries and National Tar Products v. CCE 9. The aforesaid decisions based upon which the impugned judgment has been rendered by the Tribunal, have been confirmed by this Court in its order dated 2-8-2006 in CCE & Customs v. Tikatar Industries. In view of this, the second issue as well raised by the Revenue stands concluded. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeals and dismiss the same.